On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:57 AM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Certainly both party and non-party candidates would be permitted in > Condorcet. If primaries were also used, parties would nominate only primary > winners. This would not prevent primary losers from running as non-party > candidates.
Well the "primary" was that the "condorcet party" would hold a condorcet election. By calling it a primary, it might get State support. > One of the strongest arguments I have heard against using Condorcet in the > election and doing away with primaries, is a party desire to use primaries > to decide who to back in the election. This is true, however, I don't see it as a major issue. They could either hold a primary anyway, or just pick a candidate. >> >>> Following that kind of reasoning, it would appear that conventional >>> parties >>> have very little to lose by running Condorcet primaries instead of >>> Plurality >>> primaries, more so if there's an open primary. (So why don't they?) >> > As to open, either: > Party wants the primary to pick one if its members to be backed. > Party wants its members to do the selecting of who to back. Well, they wouldn't need a primary if the leadership just picked a candidate. I guess the parties could still put up the 40 and 60 candidates. However, I wonder if they would prefer the other party to win rather than a compromise candidate. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info